GHULAM MOHAMMAD MALLA Vs. HALIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- First Additional District and Sessions Judge Srinagar, has made reference in terms setting aside and modifying orders dated 20-5-1998 and 28-5-1998, passed by City Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, in S. 488 Cr. P. C. enforcement proceedings whereunder, Ghulam Mohammad Mala has been sent to Jail for non-payment of the accumulated maintenance charges of Rs. 50,000/- which the said Ghulam Mohammad Malla was ordered to pay to his wife and child. Both Mst. Haleema wife and Gull Adil minor son of Ghulam Mohammad Malla were awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 300/- respectively under Section 488 of Cr. P. C. on 4-5-1996, from the date of application namely, 8-2-1988. As the said Ghulam Mohd. Malla failed to pay the accumulated maintenance, the Munsiff, Judicial Magistrate, on proper motion passed an order on 20-5-1998, holding husband liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as arrears of maintenance, due to the mother and the child. Since Ghulam Mohd. Malla failed to pay and clear the outstanding and wilfully committed default, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant and directions to the Superintendent Central Jail, Srinagar to keep him in custody in Jail till he deposits the amount of maintenance or otherwise directed by a competent Court of law. The S. H. O. was also directed to execute the warrant and produce the applicant before the Court on 25-5-1998.

(2.) However, the said Ghulam Mohd. Malla was produced before the Court on 28-5-1998. The Magistrate passed an order that as Ghulam Mohd. Malla has committed wilful default in the payments, therefore, committed him to prison for undergoing imprisonment till he liquidates the whole amount of arrears of maintenance.

(3.) Both these orders were challenged in revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, wherefrom the revision was assigned to the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge. The Court of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge has dealt with the matter elaborately and reached the conclusion that the direction of the trial Magistrate of committing the husband to prison for indefinite period is not covered by any provision of law and therefore has recommended though somewhat vaguely in too general terms, for appropriate orders by this Court.